justin@inmet.UUCP (02/16/88)
John --
To date, I have ignored this whole argument as (probably) pointless.
Since you seem determined to keep it going, however, I've got to point out
that you are being *very* blithe with a very complex issue. Among other things,
you say that it is very unlikely that 1 in three US households would *want*
a computer in the near future. I think that this is quite careless; you are
entirely ignoring the tendency for new applications to make use of a) the power
of the existing machines, and b) the possible market.
For example, I can think of two applications which are in the initial
stages of catching on, which could completely invalidate this assumption.
First, there is videotex. So far, no one has managed to get a good videotex
service into the mass market. There are a lot of people concentrating on
this issue, though, and it would open up new worlds of utility for the
machines. Second, a number of people are beginning to notice the potential
that new technologies like hypertext have for education. A good, solid
education package or ten could create an enormous incentive for parents
to buy computers.
Neither of these are going to happen tomorrow. Videotex requires cheaper
computers than are the norm right now, and CAE requires more powerful
ones. However, I would be surprised if they weren't *both* important
factors in the industry in five years.
Then again, Eric Drexler could figure out how to end world hunger,
make peace, and make humanity immortal next Monday. The point is, it is
almost *impossible* to guess what will happen in the future of techonology,
and I find it rather irritating when someone comes forward, presenting
a pretty casual analysis of that future, and presents it as fact.
Doing an objective, likely-to-be-accurate analysis of this issue is a
project on the scale of a PhD dissertation (or, more likely, several
such dissertations). I'm not saying that you are definitely wrong; I
would simply like to request that you stop asserting that it *will* be
this way, and admit that this is *one* *possible* *outcome*.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin du Coeur in SCA, fandom, |/\ Mundanely, (if you insist) Mark Waks
or any interesting company | / (617) 661-1840, x4704
...{ihnp4, mirror, ima}!inmet!justin |/ Intermetrics, Inc. (aka I**2)
or justin@inmet.inmet.com |-- This space for rent (reasonable rates)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: No one knows who I am, anyway, so who am *I* to dictate policy?aburt@isis.UUCP (Andrew Burt) (02/18/88)
In article <122600002@inmet> justin@inmet.UUCP writes: > To date, I have ignored this whole argument as (probably) pointless. Probably a wise move; I've given up arguing, I'm confident time will prove who of us was right. (And remember, US market changes don't count; John Bass will only be correct if the PC market suffers a 50% decline on top of any US economic problems.) >... For example, I can think of two applications which are in the initial >stages of catching on, which could completely invalidate this assumption. Another one I've heard rumors about is that the IRS will begin pushing for returns to be filed on-line. Providing enough PCs so the fraction of late filers can upload their return on April 14th should keep the market going for decades... :-) [But seriously, there are around 100 million individual returns filed each year; if this gives people the push needed to purchase a PC then there are a lot of potential PC purchasers out there with a "reason" to buy. No doubt publicly available PC's will flourish even more, but then those are sales too...] Like I said before: You can't predict future applications. Someone could come out with a new piece of s/w tomorrow that opens up a new use for PCs and up go sales of PC's. (Besides, JB said his 20% mistake on US population was well within his margin of error on other points anyway, a statement I interpret to mean he knows his numbers *could be* way off. As I tried to show, his errors could be so gross as to indicate a mere 13% drop -- and that was still assuming most of his premises, that validity of which I highly doubt as well.) -- Andrew Burt isis!aburt Fight Denver's pollution: Don't Breathe and Drive.